Can Religion Still Be Useful?

[braces_for_impact]

I haven't yet watched the clip, so perhaps he does this, but I would think we would need to define "useful" in this context to answer the question right? Useful in what way? Is it useful in a way that other methods are not or cannot be? Does the potential for abuse (and boy does religion have such potential) outweigh this usefulness?

Personally, other than the social aspect, I fail to see what religion provides that other methods cannot - like philosophy for instance. I believe that for those that want or need such a social framework, other methods can provide it, but we are in our infancy in experimenting with providing such alternatives.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

In short: "we need to understand how we functions."

That is completely different from "we need religion".

No.

The majority of your psyche's functioning is irrational (instinctive). If you want to come to terms with who and what you are you need to engage with it at the irrational level. (That doesn't mean you need to abandon rationality either.)

 

[modernPrimitive2]

We fundamentally do need religion. By that I don't mean organized religion but rather that we do need some way to integrate and interface with magical and superstitious thinking. Why? Because, fundamentally a very large part of our psyche works that way. For example love and sex are entirely irrational

How is "love" irrational? "Love" and our social intuitions developed because it helped our species. There are other species that mate for life as well.

You're merely rationalizing "Love", providing a rational reason for it's existence. That does not make love as it functions within the human psyche, a product of the rational function. Do you rationally think to yourself "Oh, that person over there has the curves or bulges in the right place so I'm attracted to them"? Are those curves or bulges attractive because you reasoned them to be so or is that instinctive / unconscious?

I don't necessarily mean that we must adopt superstitious thinking but that perhaps it needs to be re-framed in such a way that it can be harmonized with rational thinking.

You mean like how atheists already do it?

To some degree yes, but it needs to be taken further. Dawkin's acknowledgement of the irrational function in the God Delusion is merely the start. He fails to see the bigger picture that a large portion of the human psyche is irrational and the only way to engage with it is via it's own "language" - that being, the language of "mythology", "superstition" and so on.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How is "love" irrational? "Love" and our social intuitions developed because it helped our species. There are other species that mate for life as well.

You're merely rationalizing "Love", providing a rational reason for it's existence.

That doesn't count?

That does not make love as it functions within the human psyche, a product of the rational function.

Well, how much isn't based on instinct? You can say almost everything has no rational basis.

I don't necessarily mean that we must adopt superstitious thinking but that perhaps it needs to be re-framed in such a way that it can be harmonized with rational thinking.

You mean like how atheists already do it?

To some degree yes, but it needs to be taken further. Dawkin's acknowledgement of the irrational function in the God Delusion is merely the start. He fails to see the bigger picture that a large portion of the human psyche is irrational and the only way to engage with it is via it's own "language" - that being, the language of "mythology", "superstition" and so on.

Mythology is about trying to explain the unknown: the origin of man, the weather, hot dogs in packs of 8 and buns in packs of 10. Superstition is about pretending that you can manipulate/influence events and the future. These things exist to offer a perceived level of control. Atheism really doesn't hit on either of these things, nor should it. Atheism is about a deity not existing, never existing. Everything else is a free for all. There are still myths and superstition even without god.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

You're merely rationalizing "Love", providing a rational reason for it's existence.

That doesn't count?

That does not make love as it functions within the human psyche, a product of the rational function.

Well, how much isn't based on instinct? You can say almost everything has no rational basis.

Agreed. To some degree the rational function may be involved in making choices but it's largely instinctive / irrational. A good example is when people are attracted to the kinds of people they know are not good for them. Even when people do choose someone that is perhaps "good for them", that choice is largely irrational in the sense that there's an emotional motivation - for example, a fear of not being able to deal with the object of desire and so one "settles for less". This is precisely why learning to integrate or work with irrational parts of the psyche are so important.

Mythology is about trying to explain the unknown: the origin of man, the weather, hot dogs in packs of 8 and buns in packs of 10. Superstition is about pretending that you can manipulate/influence events and the future. These things exist to offer a perceived level of control. Atheism really doesn't hit on either of these things, nor should it. Atheism is about a deity not existing, never existing. Everything else is a free for all. There are still myths and superstition even without god.

You're making the mistake of assuming that cultures that are / were strongly superstitious require(d) the same level of rational explanation that we do in modernity. There's more evidence to support the idea that mythology is a metaphorical narrative that describes the processes and structures of the psyche(s) / cultures from which it emerges. Why do we have fairy tales for example? As for the rest of your statement, I agree.

 

[Juma]

In short: "we need to understand how we functions."

That is completely different from "we need religion".

No.

The majority of your psyche's functioning is irrational (instinctive). If you want to come to terms with who and what you are you need to engage with it at the irrational level. (That doesn't mean you need to abandon rationality either.)

Being instinctive is not the same as being religious.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Atheism has always been an available menu option and the tribe has ALWAYS had the choice to take their unwanted witch doctor, shaman, Old Testament prophet, etc and throw them off a cliff.

Like when The Inquisition happened?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Atheism has always been an available menu option and the tribe has ALWAYS had the choice to take their unwanted witch doctor, shaman, Old Testament prophet, etc and throw them off a cliff.

Like when The Inquisition happened?

Or even more recent. I know of a few Mormon missionaries to Spain who nearly committed suicide. They were sharing their gospel and people seemed really interested in learning all about the LDS theology, but in the end had to stay Catholic because the RCC owns all the cemeteries and they couldn't be buried with their families if they left the Church.

 

[rousseau]

Religion typically involves belief in a deity or deities. If it doesn't, it's actually just philosophy and not religion. Ethical philosophies are useful, belief and encouragement of belief in deities is the promotion of delusion, which is only useful as a psychological hack to not get angsty about life.

If we're talking useful as in 'helping people lead quality and comfortable lives', then delusion is usually not a good thing.

 

[bilby]

I haven't yet watched the clip, so perhaps he does this, but I would think we would need to define "useful" in this context to answer the question right? Useful in what way? Is it useful in a way that other methods are not or cannot be? Does the potential for abuse (and boy does religion have such potential) outweigh this usefulness?

Personally, other than the social aspect, I fail to see what religion provides that other methods cannot - like philosophy for instance. I believe that for those that want or need such a social framework, other methods can provide it, but we are in our infancy in experimenting with providing such alternatives.

The social aspect doesn't require religion either.

I go once a week to a big building, where a bunch of other people from my town get together and chant and sing, and congratulate each other on being followers of the right sect, while denigrating the followers of other sects, and try to influence events that are not in their control by pure will-power, while denouncing the evil one and his minions. It's a great social event, it gives me an opportunity to feel a tribalistic connection, and allows me to turn off rationality for a couple of hours and simply become a part of the crowd.

Of course, we usually refer to the evil one as 'the referee' and his minions as 'linesmen', rather than using the terms 'devil' and 'demons', but from a social perspective, I don't see anything that religion does that cannot be achieved via football.

Basically, in any arena of human existence in which religion has positive effects, you could take the religion part away, and still get the positive effect with a secular equivalent. So not only can religion not still be useful; it never was.

 

[DBT]

Religion may be useful as Plato's Royal Lie, but with the benefits comes the downside; religion as a source of division and conflict.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

No.

The majority of your psyche's functioning is irrational (instinctive). If you want to come to terms with who and what you are you need to engage with it at the irrational level. (That doesn't mean you need to abandon rationality either.)

Being instinctive is not the same as being religious.

Agreed. But it's strongly correlated and I'm not talking about organized religion here as you can clearly see. But I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

Religion typically involves belief in a deity or deities. If it doesn't, it's actually just philosophy and not religion. Ethical philosophies are useful, belief and encouragement of belief in deities is the promotion of delusion, which is only useful as a psychological hack to not get angsty about life.

If we're talking useful as in 'helping people lead quality and comfortable lives', then delusion is usually not a good thing.

I disagree with this because my point has been that one must learn to engage with the irrational aspect of the psyche at the irrational level. Philosophy generally doesn't do that, it's mostly a rational engagement. Relating to one's own psyche at the unconscious or instinctive level is intrinsically irrational and it opens up a set of tools that are otherwise not available when restricted to rational engagement. Take for example the clinical success of the shamanic plant Tabernanthe iboga in treating heroin addiction. The subjective experience of self-reflection is strongly irrational (though coupled with the rational), vision of "evil spirits" being exorcised, lectures from the "spirit of the plant" (ie: vision sof "Dr. Iboga") and so on. This kind of psychological effect is not possible without that kind of engagement. "Animism" is considered a form of religion too - granted it's not the organized religion we know today which has been hijacked by politics, but it's "religious", irrational etc.

 

[Juma]

Being instinctive is not the same as being religious.

Agreed. But it's strongly correlated and I'm not talking about organized religion here as you can clearly see. But I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Yes we should! Religion is not the way to go. There are many ways to relate, and use the our intuitive side without going batshit crazy and believe that there are some "truths" to be found there except truths about our intuitions...

 

[bilby]

It's one thing to not throw out the baby with the bath water; it's another thing altogether to refuse to let anyone throw out the now cold and stagnant bath water because, despite it having been gone through with a fine sieve, you still insist that there could be an invisible and unfilterable baby in there.

 

[Atheos]

At the risk of just saying "me too," Bilby's post is spot-on. For the "baby with the bathwater" analogy to apply there needs to be something truly of value that outweighs the adverse effects of keeping the bathwater around. Religion's adverse effects are all-too obvious for those who care to look with even moderate objectivity. Religion inevitably comes down to believing something without evidence only because someone else tells you what to believe. No good comes from that. Facts can stand up to scrutiny. They can be validated and demonstrated true. When you believe something because it has been rigorously tested and confirmed you're not holding a religious belief, you're accepting a fact.

Believing something religiously accomplishes nothing of value and only engenders the inevitable conflict between reality and sacred beliefs. We see these sorts of struggles daily as fundamentalists attempt to keep public schools from teaching basic scientific facts because they may cause their children to believe differently from what they want. And that's just the tip of the iceberg, to switch analogies.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

I totally agree with regard to organized religion. But is that really "religion" or is it more accurately described as "politics", whereby the former has been hijacked by the latter? If you mean to say that we should absolutely discard the irrational then from a psychodynamics / psychological perspective I would disagree. As individuals we lead a subjective, largely instinct-driven existence and to ignore that and pretend that we can live solely by our rational function is naive. We need to extract what might useful from religious or superstitious practices (in a way that is at least largely harmonious with rational thinking).

Next time you have to deal with a small child who is afraid of the dark try the following:

1) Try to reason with them that there is nothing to fear.

2) Let them sleep in their favourite superhero outfit ("magical robes"). Give them a toy version of the superhero's main weapon to put next to the bed (a "magical talisman"). Tell them to use certain words to call their superhero during a nightmare to defeat the "monsters" (a "magical spell") and so on...

Guess which one will be more effective?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I totally agree with regard to organized religion. But is that really "religion" or is it more accurately described as "politics", whereby the former has been hijacked by the latter? If you mean to say that we should absolutely discard the irrational then from a psychodynamics / psychological perspective I would disagree. As individuals we lead a subjective, largely instinct-driven existence and to ignore that and pretend that we can live solely by our rational function is naive. We need to extract what might useful from religious or superstitious practices (in a way that is at least largely harmonious with rational thinking).

Next time you have to deal with a small child who is afraid of the dark try the following:

1) Try to reason with them that there is nothing to fear.

2) Let them sleep in their favourite superhero outfit ("magical robes"). Give them a toy version of the superhero's main weapon to put next to the bed (a "magical talisman"). Tell them to use certain words to call their superhero during a nightmare to defeat the "monsters" (a "magical spell") and so on...

Guess which one will be more effective?

Which one will be more effective when the kid is 19 and knows that superheroes aren't real? Maybe he'll move on to a plastic jesus on the dresser. What's the difference?

The kid who feels safe around his superheroes or with his security blanket, or embraces his jesus statue is merely using the knowledge and experience at his disposal to problem solve and survive. People move on from evil spirits to germ theory too. But some people continue to do both and some people die because they still practice evil spirit belief to the exclusion of germ theory.

Religion is okay if you know it's phony and not real but you still use it to self medicate and be comforted. It's no different than going to a movie or reading a novel or catching a play or an opera. It's the human ability to pretend and can be extremely restorative, and religion can fit that category. There are certain behaviors I engage in daily that are comforting rituals which therein lie their survival value. But none of them I associate with religion.

The words you're looking for are along the lines of emotional comfort and we all practice that. But it's not religion though many would disagree and therein lies a problem for many people such as those who see a flower, feel good, and start telling you about a magic spaceman who made it. If they were highly skeptical about magic space creatures they'd be a lot better off, and so would the rest of society. They might begin to appreciate how human behavior evolves and how it is connected to the flower and the environment as a whole and how some behaviors are selected for over others. But it's much easier to just believe in magic, and much more dangerous too.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Would we not first need to know what religion is before we decide if it is a good thing or a bad thing? What of our experiences with religion?

I grew up with rather positive experiences with religion. (I grew up in a church where I always had the good music, good oration, and really good food. ) It just never made sense to me to believe what I knew wasn't literally true. A man can't live in the belly of whale because my Gramma told me that in the stomach there were digestive acids that break down flesh. I grew up in the country and saw a lot of snakes, none of them talked, they hissed; that is what snakes do. I have had ecstatic experiences before and intend on having them again, but I know those experiences come from my own brain and not an old white man with a long white beard who lives far away yet can see everything I do and is making a list and checking it twice. That would be Santa Clause.

Now I know, everyone has not had the experiences I have had, and everyone is valid in their own interpretation of how good or bad religion is, but in order to have a discussion about religion, everyone must agree on or at least have some understanding of what other people in the discussion mean when using terms key to that discussion.

Now, do we want to have a discussion and risk seeing something from someone else's perspective, or do we want to feel morally superior to someone else in our own righteous hate or love of religion?

otherwise, we talk past each other.

 

[Keith&Co.]

otherwise, we talk past each other.

Well, isn't that the nature of religion?

My church is cool people, your church hates (_____)s.
My god is loving, your god puts innocents in hell.
I know what religion REALLY is, you're just too attached to your myopic misunderstanding of the true nature of God.
Religion causes jihad/witchhunts/crusades/suicide... NO, that's people fucking up a beautiful thing that has nothing to do with murder in God's name....
God's word is clear.... Dude, you're quoting Dante's Inferno, not scripture.